Headlines

Fox News

Oh, by the way, the black hole threat from that particle collider is greater than thought

Rather, Roberto Casadio of the University of Bologna in Italy and Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms of the University of Alabama say mini black holes could exist for much longer — perhaps even more than a second, a relative eternity in particle colliders, where most objects decay much faster.

Under such long-lived conditions, it becomes a race between how fast a black hole can decay — and how fast it can gobble up matter to grow bigger and prevent itself from decaying.

“We conclude that … the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible. Nonetheless, it remains true that the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly >> 1 second) than is typically predicted by other models,” the three state in a brief paper posted at the scientific discussion Web site ArXiv.org.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Okay, so not to doubt the strength of the Physics Department at the University of Alabama (home of the Fightin’ Wallaces) but I think I’ll wait until this paper is peer reviewed and all the math verified before, you know, calling to shut down something that could turn out one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time.

The only thing we know for sure is that they don’t really know what will happen. The risk might be small, but the stakes are massive – the world. These uber nerds are fooling with stuff they don’t really understand. Normally in science, that is how it works. But normally in science the risk of something going wrong is only to the scientist himself and his lab. In this case, the risk is to all of us.

We have a bunch of nerds giddy with excitement, not really sure what will happen, they hope to create some kind of black hole, just one small enough to do no harm. But they are not sure. Nobody is accountable here. Where is the oversight? Whom do they have to assure to get the green light? Evidently only themselves and some politicians whom they have assured there is nothing to worry about.

The energy available to create a black hole at the LHC totals 14 TeV per interaction. That means that a black hole with a mass of 2.5E-20 grams could be created. What kind of area of influence would that be? (Schwartzchild radius) About 4E-50 m. Compared to a proton (2E-15 m) and an electron (1.5E-15 m) — that’s a hundred million billion billion billion times smaller than an electron.

I think you are assuming that equations for a large scale black hole apply at that level. The paper points out we don’t know that, and supposes that under a different model for small scale gravitation, the area of influence is much larger because the behavior of gravity would be very different at that scale.

They also suppose that these things start out much larger. I don’t know how, maybe they combine with each other because of electric or magnetic effects because there are very many 14TeV events in close proximity.

It really isn’t a problem. Even if we make a black hole, we just isolate it in an envelopment shield created by its own time-space matrix distortion vortex, harness the energy output, and then we have all the free power we want for the rest of all of our 12 regenerations.

It is true that nobody knows all the consequences of all their actions — but I’ll wager anything that the LHC is as likely to end the world as is you cooking dinner in the evening.

The scientists themselves, some of them, admit they really don’t know what will happen. You certainly don’t. The salient point is that you don’t screw with things like creating black holes unless you can contain them. Since they have no way of containing a black hole, making one is foolish.

There is no oversight on this project. These people are just experimenting with forces they can’t control. They science is not well understood enough. Unfortunately, in order indulge their intellectual curiosities, they have to put everybody at risk. That is not kosher scientific practice.

Unfortunately, there tends to be a huge anti-science movement in the core base of Conservatives at the moment.

Summer on January 27, 2009 at 4:51 PM

What there is in the conservative movement is huge skepticism of academia. Considering that the graduates of the Ivy League are still not done f***ing up the entire capitalist system, I think that having intelligent people asking WTF are they doing with all those billions of euros is not out of line.

There is no oversight on this project. These people are just experimenting with forces they can’t control. They science is not well understood enough. Unfortunately, in order indulge their intellectual curiosities, they have to put everybody at risk. That is not kosher scientific practice.

keep the change on January 27, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Wrong.

The oversight is from the top minds in their fields of the scientific community. They are the experts. Who better to determine together the risks of doing something like this? Would you, instead, wish for politicians to say whether or not they are right? Most politicians wouldn’t even be able to get through the first chapter of a book which describes the fundamentals of the physics involved in this project. Who else would be qualified to oversee this other than the scientists themselves?

The oversight is from the top minds in their fields of the scientific community.

That is not oversight. Oversight means somebody who is in a position to accept responsibility who ALSO understand the risks. These scientists are not accepting any responsibility. They are just experimenting and putting everybody at risk – literally everybody.

This is what socialists do. They take billions of dollars of taxpayer money, do crazy experiments all in the name of bettering society, and no one is accountable when they screw up. Usually, however, they just destroy cultures or economies. Now they are tinkering with something that can destroy the world, but the mindset is the same.

I agree is there only a minuscule probability that something will go wrong. In that circumstance, it would be very hard for someone to put their career on the line to say wait a minute, maybe there is one little detail that we haven’t checked umpteen times, everyone go home while we do that. Like the o-rings in cold temperatures on the shuttle.

I don’t know that there is anyone whose career is sufficiently safe to give an open minded assessment of the risks, but they need to be found. There are too many examples of groups of people getting caught up in their own part and not seeing the big picture. If that kind of assessment has been done, fine, but did they consider the angle raised in this latest paper.

It just seems to me that the comparison to cosmic rays is not adequate, because first of all we don’t even understand where they come from, and second they are much more diffuse than the events in the LHC.

That is not oversight. Oversight means somebody who is in a position to accept responsibility who ALSO understand the risks. These scientists are not accepting any responsibility. They are just experimenting and putting everybody at risk – literally everybody.

keep the change on January 27, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Ok again, my question is: whom is it exactly that you happen to recommend? Anyone in particular who actually understands this? Somebody who can look Stephen Hawking in the eye and say “You know what? You might be wrong and here’s why…” and goes to show exactly why Sir Stephen is wrong? With actual science, mind you.

If not, why would such a person have any authority on this at all?

And I think you guys are really missing the point. The point is, it can’t happen. There’s more chance of a meteorite falling right now and wiping out the earth forever than there is of this causing any damage whatsoever aside from blowing up a few extra protons in an incredibly empty space. You’re scared of a nothing right now. You should be more scared of crossing the street than you should be of the LHC blowing anything up whatsoever. Hell, there’s more chance of one of our own nuclear bombs going off simply by virtue of quantum chance than there is of a “black hole” in the LHC suddenly gobbling up anything more than a few stray particles. I think you guys just hate science and do anything you can to try to denigrate “those scientists”. =)

Seems like your picture of scientists are all mad eggheads in white lab coats trying to change the world for their own benefit and not yours. That isn’t how it is.

Not true at all. All the scientists admit it is a possibility. The debate is concerning the odds. Unlike the other examples of risk you cite, this is the only example that could destroy the planet. This is why even the slightest risk is unacceptable. They must first know how to contain black holes before experimenting to create them. This is reckless.